Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Godge · 17-04-2014 12:09pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

If a referendum takes place (which it has to, sooner or later) it will be with the blessing of Unionists, who will have accepted the possibility of losing it, any violent reaction to the result will be from an isolated rump (that still exists, granted) of belligerents.
There will be no credibility in Unionists en masse joining them. And certainly not after having listened to their moralising for the last 40 years.

The snooker will still be in play. And I, for one cannot see a way out of it for them, only making the best of it and contributing to the new arrangement.

Well, I am glad to see that you have finally accepted that a referendum may not take place for many years. You have also accepted that Unionists will have to be persuaded to the possibility of a united Ireland.

Now perhaps you might consider how you might persuade (rather than bully or intimidate) Unionists into accepting the possibility of a united Ireland. Otherwise we will be back into my timeframe of 50-100 years.

R P McMurphy · 17-04-2014 12:13pm

Godge wrote: »

Well, I am glad to see that you have finally accepted that a referendum may not take place for many years. You have also accepted that Unionists will have to be persuaded to the possibility of a united Ireland.

Now perhaps you might consider how you might persuade (rather than bully or intimidate) Unionists into accepting the possibility of a united Ireland. Otherwise we will be back into my timeframe of 50-100 years.

Once the numbers in traditionally CNR communities tip over 50% of the population there will be legitimate calls for a border poll and the sec of state would need a good excuse for not holding one. To not do so would be overtly anti democratic.

gallag · 17-04-2014 12:48pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Once the numbers in traditionally CNR communities tip over 50% of the population there will be legitimate calls for a border poll and the sec of state would need a good excuse for not holding one. To not do so would be overtly anti democratic.

I don't get why the C Is with the N&R? Certainly Nationalists and Republicans by there very name would hold aspirations for a U.I but why would catholics hope to be ruled by the corrupt Dublin government by default? The question is when will the nationalist and Republican communities reach 50% of the population?

Godge · 17-04-2014 12:59pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Once the numbers in traditionally CNR communities tip over 50% of the population there will be legitimate calls for a border poll and the sec of state would need a good excuse for not holding one. To not do so would be overtly anti democratic.

There may not be such calls because the nationalist politicians will be still flummoxed by the paltry level of support for a united Ireland in the short-term. No matter how high the nationalist population goes, economics means that the % who favour an immediate united Ireland will not rise above 20% this side of 2030.

alastair · 17-04-2014 1:04pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is a matter of dispute, and is just your opinion.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. None of the NI paramilitary groups achieved their stated aims. That's a record of 100% failure.

R P McMurphy · 17-04-2014 1:11pm

gallag wrote: »

I don't get why the C Is with the N&R? Certainly Nationalists and Republicans by there very name would hold aspirations for a U.I but why would catholics hope to be ruled by the corrupt Dublin government by default? The question is when will the nationalist and Republican communities reach 50% of the population?

The reason the c is in there is the same reason the p is in the pul. Certainly being a member of the catholic community does not mean someone would vote for a ui but would indicate they wptuld vote for nationalist parties. I dont know mny Catholics tht vote for unionist parties, in fact I would hazard guess and say none. When the majority are voting for nationalist parties then a border poll becomes inevitable. I know you are scared of such a poll but if you are convinced one would fail then why the concern

alastair · 17-04-2014 1:14pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The reason the c is in there is the same reason the p is in the pul. Certainly being a member of the catholic community does not mean someone would vote for a ui but would indicate they wptuld vote for nationalist parties. I dont know mny Catholics tht vote for unionist parties, in fact I would hazard guess and say none. When the majority are voting for nationalist parties then a border poll becomes inevitable. I know you are scared of such a poll but if you are convinced one would fail then why the concern

Hmm

R P McMurphy · 17-04-2014 1:17pm

alastair wrote: »

Hmm

Yes?

Your point?

alastair · 17-04-2014 1:36pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Yes?

Your point?

It rather puts the implication that the 'CNR communities' are any real useful indicator of the potential for a vote against the union. 36% of Alliance voters are Catholic, so while there might not be a significant number of Catholics voting for unionist parties (I'm sure there's some in the 1% of non-Protestant supporters), it's not a given that they will vote for nationalist parties - many vote for no parties at all, and are unlikely to factor their religion into a sovereignty referendum.

R P McMurphy · 17-04-2014 1:40pm

alastair wrote: »

It rather puts the implication that the 'CNR communities' are any real useful indicator of the potential for a vote against the union. 36% of Alliance voters are Catholic, so while there might not be a significant number of Catholics voting for unionist parties (I'm sure there's some in the 1% of non-Protestant supporters), it's not a given that they will vote for nationalist parties - many vote for no parties at all, and are unlikely to factor their religion into a sovereignty referendum.

Well that is all well and good but who was making the point that catholics would vote for a united ireland?

alastair · 17-04-2014 1:48pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Well that is all well and good but who was making the point that catholics would vote for a united ireland?

You seem happy enough to drop them in there with a notional grouping who's numbers are indicators for the legitimacy of a border poll?

Happyman42 · 17-04-2014 2:02pm

alastair wrote: »

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. None of the NI paramilitary groups achieved their stated aims. That's a record of 100% failure.

It's far too early to say what the IRA campaign achieved given that they signed up to a process (GFA) which has only begun.
It's something the British and Unionists need to face up to...the deal is that it is a process.

Godge wrote: »

Well, I am glad to see that you have finally accepted that a referendum may not take place for many years. You have also accepted that Unionists will have to be persuaded to the possibility of a united Ireland.

Now perhaps you might consider how you might persuade (rather than bully or intimidate) Unionists into accepting the possibility of a united Ireland. Otherwise we will be back into my timeframe of 50-100 years.

That post is so grasping and desperate in tone I am almost sure I heard echos of 'Never Never Never!' :rolleyes:

alastair · 17-04-2014 2:05pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's far too early to say what the IRA campaign achieved given that they signed up to a process (GFA) which has only begun.

What's the GFA got to do with the IRA's stated goals? All the paramilitary organizations (bar CIRA and RIRA) signed up to the peace process, but that's as a consequence of their respective campaigns failing. The IRA's goals were no secret - they stuck them up on walls all over the place - which of those goals have been achieved through their campaign of violence? None of them, of course.

Happyman42 · 17-04-2014 2:13pm

alastair wrote: »

but that's as a consequence of their respective campaigns failing.

^ Personal opinion. Nothing more.
The armed struggle came to an end, the struggle for unity continues. Fact.

alastair · 17-04-2014 2:14pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

^ Personal opinion. Nothing more.
The armed struggle came to an end, the struggle for unity continues. Fact.

Again - It's not an opinion, it's a fact. None of the NI paramilitary groups achieved their stated aims. That's a record of 100% failure.

If you can demonstrate where any of the IRA's stated goals have been achieved on the back of their campaign, feel free to point them out.

Happyman42 · 17-04-2014 2:23pm

alastair wrote: »

Again - It's not an opinion, it's a fact. None of the NI paramilitary groups achieved their stated aims. That's a record of 100% failure.

If you can demonstrate where any of the IRA's stated goals have been achieved on the back of their campaign, feel free to point them out.

We've had this debate before and there is no need to rehash it. We both have different opinions and what was achieved therefore they are 'opinions'.
It can easily be argued that nobody involved has achieved their 'stated goals', paramilitaries and constitutional parties. The Union is only secure for the present.

R P McMurphy · 17-04-2014 2:29pm

alastair wrote: »

You seem happy enough to drop them in there with a notional grouping who's numbers are indicators for the legitimacy of a border poll?

Are you having trouble following the logic? Catholics traditionally vote for nationlist parties. Catholics are going to be in the majority ergo so will nationalists. When nationalist parties are in the majority a border poll will be necessary. Whether they will vote to disolve the union is certainly unclear and polls would seem to suggest at this point no. Why are unionists so scared of border poll?

alastair · 17-04-2014 2:32pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

It can easily be argued that nobody involved has achieved their 'stated goals', paramilitaries and constitutional parties.

Of course it is, of you measure some of their goals, but then the constitutional parties always accepted that the success of their policies were dependent on consent, and framed them on that basis. The SDLP for instance have achieved much of their historically stated goals. Can you say the same for the goals of the IRA? No you can't.

This isn't a subjective argument - it's an objective one. You simply stack up the goals alongside what's been achieved. Do so and you can measure the abject failure to achieve any of them.

Godge · 17-04-2014 2:49pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The reason the c is in there is the same reason the p is in the pul. Certainly being a member of the catholic community does not mean someone would vote for a ui but would indicate they wptuld vote for nationalist parties. I dont know mny Catholics tht vote for unionist parties, in fact I would hazard guess and say none. When the majority are voting for nationalist parties then a border poll becomes inevitable. I know you are scared of such a poll but if you are convinced one would fail then why the concern

While catholic may equal support for nationalist parties, it does not equal support for a united Ireland in the immediate future. Numerous opinion polls have confirmed this.

R P McMurphy · 17-04-2014 3:32pm

Godge wrote: »

While catholic may equal support for nationalist parties, it does not equal support for a united Ireland in the immediate future. Numerous opinion polls have confirmed this.

Is that not what I said. Care to answer the question of why so much fear of a border poll when the result would be in favour of the union? I always sense a lot of trepidation in relation to this, to the point where unionists won't countenance the possibility of a border poll

alastair · 17-04-2014 3:40pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Is that not what I said. Care to answer the question of why so much fear of a border poll when the result would be in favour of the union? I always sense a lot of trepidation in relation to this, to the point where unionists won't countenance the possibility of a border poll

This presumes that there's any fear of a border poll. Didn't the DUP make noises about calling SF's bluff and supporting the call for a poll? But since everyone knows it would fail, it really only benefit's SF's profile, rather than progress the issue. The SDLP are notably lukewarm on the timing of the proposed poll - for the obvious reasons.

Happyman42 · 17-04-2014 5:44pm

alastair wrote: »

Of course it is, of you measure some of their goals, but then the constitutional parties always accepted that the success of their policies were dependent on consent, and framed them on that basis. The SDLP for instance have achieved much of their historically stated goals. Can you say the same for the goals of the IRA? No you can't.

This isn't a subjective argument - it's an objective one. You simply stack up the goals alongside what's been achieved. Do so and you can measure the abject failure to achieve any of them.

Troops Out was the stated goal and the withdrawal of Britain has always been the stated goal of Republicans in general, which is still current and live.
Your opinion of what the armed struggle achieved is a personal one as there are plenty who feel that it achieved equality and an end to discrimination in a sectarian statelet. It was what you would expect of any army going into battle.
We can expect honest Loyalists to state their goals like this maybe;

'No Surrender......Maybe' or
'Never Never Never.....ah Sure Go on!'

R P McMurphy · 17-04-2014 5:58pm

alastair wrote: »

This presumes that there's any fear of a border poll. Didn't the DUP make noises about calling SF's bluff and supporting the call for a poll? But since everyone knows it would fail, it really only benefit's SF's profile, rather than progress the issue. The SDLP are notably lukewarm on the timing of the proposed poll - for the obvious reasons.

Whenever it is mentioned, people are at pains to say will never happen or will not happen for decdes, as is evident on this very thread. The real reason for the discomfort is that if one is called then it can be reheld every seven years, until the result is a united Ireland. This reinforces that the entire process is headed in one direction. It my be slow but is geared towards one eventual outcome. There is no provision for a reversal of the referendum if one passes in favour of ui. The process is thus: vote for a ui or for maintaining the union, if the vote is for remining in the uk then the vote will be reheld every 7 years until the vote is for ui. In other words keep voting until the right result is achieved

alastair · 17-04-2014 6:12pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Whenever it is mentioned, people are at pains to say will never happen or will not happen for decdes, as is evident on this very thread. The real reason for the discomfort is that if one is called then it can be reheld every seven years, until the result is a united Ireland. This reinforces that the entire process is headed in one direction.

No discomfort in that at all. And there's no single direction the process would lead to - every time there's two possible outcomes.

R P McMurphy wrote: »

It my be slow but is geared towards one eventual outcome. There is no provision for a reversal of the referendum if one passes in favour of ui.

Because you can't legislate for an unknown governing authority. Who would be in a position to enforce such a provision?

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The process is thus: vote for a ui or for maintaining the union, if the vote is for remining in the uk then the vote will be reheld every 7 years until the vote is for ui. In other words keep voting until the right result is achieved

No it's not. Once there's been a referendum, the secretary of state is not allowed to consider another referendum for at least 7 years. There's no obligation to then hold another referendum unless they feel there's a likely majority to warrant a referendum.

alastair · 17-04-2014 6:15pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Troops Out was the stated goal and the withdrawal of Britain has always been the stated goal of Republicans in general, which is still current and live.

Ah now - that was only one of a number of stated goals, what about the rest? Like I say - feel free to highlight a single goal that they achieved through their campaign of violence. Because they failed with regard to all of them.

Happyman42 · 17-04-2014 7:06pm

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The real reason for the discomfort is that if one is called then it can be reheld every seven years, until the result is a united Ireland. This reinforces that the entire process is headed in one direction.

It's not hard to see the British intention just by looking at that clause. They want out and by doing it this way, it makes them look good and rids them of a statlet that embarrasses them on the world stage and has done for a long time.

alastair · 17-04-2014 7:26pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's not hard to see the British intention just by looking at that clause. They want out and by doing it this way, it makes them look good and rids them of a statlet that embarrasses them on the world stage and has done for a long time.

Except that there's no clause which requires a referendum every 7 years. Aside from that, entirely your opinion.

Godge · 17-04-2014 10:46pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's not hard to see the British intention just by looking at that clause. They want out and by doing it this way, it makes them look good and rids them of a statlet that embarrasses them on the world stage and has done for a long time.

More rubbish.

"1. The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order.

2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.

3. The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule."

Firstly, the Secretary of State only calls a referendum if it "appears likely to him" that a majority want an end to partition. To me, that would mean SF would have to command more than 50% of the vote. It won't be enough to say that there are more Catholics than Protestants.

Secondly, there is no requirement to hold one every seven years. What it says is that it must be at least seven years between each poll. If the result is 85:15 in a poll conducted in 2017, then I cannot see another poll in 2024, it would be much later than that.

Maybe you should read the Good Friday Agreement again.

Happyman42 · 17-04-2014 11:11pm

Successive polls as the demographics change....methinks the British are behaving at their duplicitous best. But jut ignore it and enjoy the moment.

alastair · 17-04-2014 11:32pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Successive polls as the demographics change....methinks the British are behaving at their duplicitous best. But jut ignore it and enjoy the moment.

...or you're simply deluding yourself by turning a mechanism for ensuring there's not a constant electoral campaign running in NI into another anti-Brit bogieman. Even though it makes no sense whatsoever.

Happyman42 · 18-04-2014 10:12am

alastair wrote: »

...or you're simply deluding yourself by turning a mechanism for ensuring there's not a constant electoral campaign running in NI into another anti-Brit bogieman. Even though it makes no sense whatsoever.

Says the man who trusts a government which has ALWAYS suited itself in Ireland. As an exit strategy it is brilliant, it is up to us.

alastair · 18-04-2014 10:57am

Happyman42 wrote: »

Says the man who trusts a government which has ALWAYS suited itself in Ireland.

Personal opinion noted.

Happyman42 wrote: »

As an exit strategy it is brilliant, it is up to us.

It's no exit strategy - it's empowering the principle of consent, while ensuring there's not a constant campaign at play. They're highly likely to be an integral part of the status quo decades from now.

Happyman42 · 18-04-2014 11:01am

alastair wrote: »

Personal opinion noted.

It's no exit strategy - it's empowering the principle of consent,

And we know the 'consent' they are looking for. :cool:

alastair · 18-04-2014 11:03am

Happyman42 wrote: »

And we know the 'consent' they are looking for. :cool:

Yes we do - the people of NI's consent.

Happyman42 · 18-04-2014 11:30am

alastair wrote: »

Yes we do - the people of NI's consent.

Yes and the plan is to keep asking until................?

alastair · 18-04-2014 12:11pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes and the plan is to keep asking until................?

Until there's no evident potential mandate for a break with the union, or a vote is made to break. It's not that tricky to understand.

junder · 18-04-2014 12:15pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Troops Out was the stated goal and the withdrawal of Britain has always been the stated goal of Republicans in general, which is still current and live.
Your opinion of what the armed struggle achieved is a personal one as there are plenty who feel that it achieved equality and an end to discrimination in a sectarian statelet. It was what you would expect of any army going into battle.
We can expect honest Loyalists to state their goals like this maybe;

'No Surrender......Maybe' or
'Never Never Never.....ah Sure Go on!'

Of which neither goal was achieved, northern Ireland is still part of the UK and troops are still garrisoned here

Happyman42 · 18-04-2014 12:29pm

junder wrote: »

Of which neither goal was achieved, northern Ireland is still part of the UK and troops are still garrisoned here

The point is militant groups don't go in to a campaign stating that their goals are 'We Might' do this or 'Maybe We Will Overcome'

Can you show us some examples, Alastair can't, maybe you can?

alastair · 18-04-2014 12:36pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

The point is militant groups don't go in to a campaign stating that their goals are 'We Might' do this or 'Maybe We Will Overcome'

Can you show us some examples, Alastair can't, maybe you can?

That's a fairly bizarre response to a simple question - either they achieved their goals, or they didn't. They didn't. On that basis, their entire 'long war' was an abject failure.

As a matter of course, no-one forefront's their uncertainty if they're trying to convince someone else of something, but that's an entirely different issue to judging them by their actual outcomes.

Godge · 18-04-2014 8:22pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes and the plan is to keep asking until................?

You really didn't read it.

There is no plan to keep asking. It is only if the circumstances warrant it that they will ask. If the first referendum is heavily defeated, there may never be another one.

vipmonty · 19-04-2014 8:19am

they will have another one if Sinn Fein thought that was the case they would not push for this one.Republicans know this one will be defeated they are looking at the longer road.The vote puts the question on the table and sparks debate. Unfortunately until the financial mess in the south is sorted northerners will find it unattractive.Down the rod if the south prospers it may be different as we all know England debt is growing and they will have some sort of crash in the next few years.Their is a problem though many people considered unionist said they are not opposed to a united ireland that much but are more opposed to the leadership of sinn fein so in a few years when a new leadership takes the stage it may be also a different story until then sinn fein will concentrate on creating all ireland initiatives to bridge the gap.

Happyman42 · 19-04-2014 9:15am

Godge wrote: »

You really didn't read it.

There is no plan to keep asking. It is only if the circumstances warrant it that they will ask. If the first referendum is heavily defeated, there may never be another one.

I did read it and I understand the intent. We all know the time is not right at the moment with the instability of the economic situation.
But the time will come and Britain will need to trim it's own budgets (I don't think the British public know just how much their failed statelet costs them.) then it won't be that difficult to demonstrate the need for the first referendum.
In the meantime the British are doing all in their power to make SF as easy to vote for as they can, while being quite happy to see angry Unionism make belligerent fools of themselves.

vipmonty · 19-04-2014 10:19am

i agree happyman42

gallag · 19-04-2014 10:42am

vipmonty wrote: »

as we all know England debt is growing and they will have some sort of crash in the next few years.

The U.K will have a budget surplus by 2018. You guys do realise the U.K has the fastest growing economy of any first world country at the minute? Things are looking very positive for the U.K, might want to read about it a bit more if you are expecting the U.K to crash.

junder · 19-04-2014 11:01am

Happyman42 wrote: »

I did read it and I understand the intent. We all know the time is not right at the moment with the instability of the economic situation.
But the time will come and Britain will need to trim it's own budgets (I don't think the British public know just how much their failed statelet costs them.) then it won't be that difficult to demonstrate the need for the first referendum.
In the meantime the British are doing all in their power to make SF as easy to vote for as they can, while being quite happy to see angry Unionism make belligerent fools of themselves.

Ironic isn't it, that Sinn Fein need the british governments help to make them electable

vipmonty · 19-04-2014 11:02am

you said will have ? thats a matter of opinion http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6227e27a-5b6f-11e3-848e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zKCqEwt1 ireland had a fast growing economy at one stage to not much use if its built on debt

alastair · 19-04-2014 11:38am

junder wrote: »

Ironic isn't it, that Sinn Fein need the british governments help to make them electable

Also ironic that the unbearable cost of running NI would be considered too much for the British to manage, but would be welcomed with open arms by the Republic's electorate. Keep in mind there's two votes required for a 32 county scenario - what's the likelihood that voters south of the border would want such a economic disaster on their hands?

alastair · 19-04-2014 11:47am

Happyman42 wrote: »

In the meantime the British are doing all in their power to make SF as easy to vote for as they can, while being quite happy to see angry Unionism make belligerent fools of themselves.

Personal opinion at odds with reality.

Happyman42 · 19-04-2014 1:28pm

alastair wrote: »

Also ironic that the unbearable cost of running NI would be considered too much for the British to manage, but would be welcomed with open arms by the Republic's electorate. Keep in mind there's two votes required for a 32 county scenario - what's the likelihood that voters south of the border would want such a economic disaster on their hands?

NI requires fiscal adjustment no matter where it is run from. I believe that is going to happen regardless of the process.

alastair · 19-04-2014 6:44pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

NI requires fiscal adjustment no matter where it is run from. I believe that is going to happen regardless of the process.

Then why pretend that it would spur on British abandonment of NI? If the economic cost of the place is going to be sorted, why would they worry about what it used to cost to retain?

Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

Comments